Sunday, November 20, 2005

Hindsight and ten cents

Billy Boy Clinton has decided the the whole Iraq deal was a bad idea from the get-go. Now he says " "Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done." Interestingly, his observations were somewhat different when he was President:

Back when he was running for President, in 1992, Mr. Clinton promised an Administration that would "not coddle tyrants, from Baghdad to Beijing." As President, he launched military strikes against Iraq in 1993, following Saddam's attempted assassination of former President Bush in Kuwait;in 1996, and in 1998, following Saddam's ouster of U.N. weapons inspectors.

On October 31, 1998, Mr. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. "The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home," Mr. Clinton said in language later adopted by the Bush Administration. "I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian makeup. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else."

"Heavy as they are, the cost of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them"

In June 2004, over a year after the liberation of Iraq, Mr. Clinton had this to say to Time magazine: "You know, I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over. . . . After 9/11, let's be fair here, if you had been President, you'd think, Well, this fellow bin Laden just turned these three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction, right? Arguably they were super-powerful chemical weapons. Think about it that way.

"So, you're sitting there as President, you're reeling in the aftermath of this, so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, 'Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that.'

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for."

So, there you have it. Revisionist history. And to think that the Democrats are going to try to sell themselves as "defenders of America", in the next election, while they simultaneously rip America, the military and defend the indefensible....."they're not terrorists, they're freedom fighters and they have rights, too".

Easily the most disgusting words to come out of the mouths of the socialist left "we support our troops BUT not what they're doing, like torture, killing innocent children, and causing terrorism around the world". And this is the way they"support" our troops?

Wall Steet Journal Opinion

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?